So many people in here are making the same mistake. The whole purpose of the courts is to decide whether some behavior does or does not fit within the confines of some statute. They don't just say "oh yeah whatever you say, go ahead." This very decision is just several instances of the court saying "the law says you can only tariff when X. you said X is true, but it's obviously not, so you can't tariff."
Right, but I think other people here may be making the opposite mistake-“according to my interpretation of the statute what the Trump admin has done isn’t allowed”-ultimately your or my interpretation doesn’t count, it is the courts
And I haven’t been arguing that the Trump admin is going to win-only that people are underestimating their chances. And even if I’m right about that, they still might lose anyway, and that fact in itself wouldn’t prove that I was wrong.
The fact that the attempt to introduce tariffs using one statute was overturned by this court, doesn’t mean the same court is automatically going to overturn those tariffs under a different statute - different texts, different tests, both the same outcome and the opposite outcome are entirely plausible
And as I said, I don’t actually think these tariffs are a good idea from a policy viewpoint - but that’s largely orthogonal to the question of what courts are going to do to them
